I liked that the line got scrapped because i sensed that immediately without the movie shoving it down my throat. Funny that people call these nolan batman movies not subtle (and they are right , most superficial contexts of the trilogy are very accentuated through dialogue ) , but the moment he plays a whole portion of the movie in such a subtle way ...people entirely miss a major point. Is failure as Bruce Wayne.

Maybe he's right how he constructed these movies. And reading some interpretations of the final...oh boy.

I liked that the line got scrapped because i sensed that immediately without the movie shoving it down my throat. Funny that people call these nolan batman movies not subtle (and they are right , most superficial contexts of the trilogy are very accentuated through dialogue ) , but the moment he plays a whole portion of the movie in such a subtle way ...people entirely miss a major point. Is failure as Bruce Wayne.

Maybe he's right how he constructed these movies. And reading some interpretations of the final...oh boy.

Same here (to the bolded part). I really don't understand how people who were so invested and so interested in the first two films didn't grasp this. People just took Bruce's grief over Rachel as the only thing that was depressing him

__________________Supermanwith Batman - Whatever It Is... - Countdown until midnight release on March 25, 2016 - updated!
A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coataround a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hadn't ended.

It's beyond annoying when people say "Oh, Bruce was a recluse for 8 years". That's not even how it went down. 5 years Bruce was in the public eye working on the clean energy project, then the next 3 years he locked himself away in Wayne Manor as a recluse.

It's beyond annoying when people say "Oh, Bruce was a recluse for 8 years". That's not even how it went down. 5 years Bruce was in the public eye working on the clean energy project, then the next 3 years he locked himself away in Wayne Manor as a recluse.

Which is why I think the inclusion of that line I mentioned above would have possibly preventing people from misunderstanding this. It might have been too direct, but then again I can't imagine how the circumstances of Bruce's retirement from Batman, work on the energy project, then eventual depression were unclear to people in the first place.

__________________Supermanwith Batman - Whatever It Is... - Countdown until midnight release on March 25, 2016 - updated!
A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coataround a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hadn't ended.

How long Bruce was a recluse and how come Bruce quit as Batman gets so mixed up all the time.

It's like people didn't even bother to pay attention to the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgec

Which is why I think the inclusion of that line I mentioned above would have possibly preventing people from misunderstanding this. It might have been too direct, but then again I can't imagine how the circumstances of Bruce's retirement from Batman, work on the energy project, then eventual depression were unclear to people in the first place.

I agree. I mean if Alfred can make his exposition of Bane's past exploits work in the same scene, I'm sure the stuff about Bruce failing as Bruce Wayne would work, no problem.

Bruce created a clean energy project that could be turned into a bomb in minutes then rather than disposing of it leaves it in the middle of a city of millions knowing full well it would always be able to be turned into a bomb and that it was unusable. After this he becomes Howard Hughes for 3 years.

So basically Bruce pouted for 3 years and neglected his companies assets and its dependents because his science project was a failure.

It doesn't really matter whether Bruce was a recluse for 3, 5, or 8 years. Either way it looks incredibly stupid and childish on his part.

Bruce created a clean energy project that could be turned into a bomb in minutes then rather than disposing of it leaves it in the middle of a city of millions knowing full well it would always be able to be turned into a bomb and that it was unusable. After this he becomes Howard Hughes for 3 years.

So basically Bruce pouted for 3 years and neglected his companies assets and its dependents because his science project was a failure.

It doesn't really matter whether Bruce was a recluse for 3, 5, or 8 years. Either way it looks incredibly stupid and childish on his part.

After something he put so much stock into, way too much stock, ended up not being needed, it left him empty inside. On top of this, the one tie he had to a life outside of Batman was dead, the man he thought could save the city without him was dead and he tried to fill this void in his life by devoting years to this big project to help everyone.....but then a paper was published about how it could be used as a bomb. If that isn't enough reason to just give up on life, I'm not too sure what is. Everything just went wrong.

Bruce had no reason to destroy the fusion reactor. He just didn't want to go public with it yet due to said fears about someone weaponizing it. Few people knew of its existence, and it's not like he could just put it in a U-Haul and drive it out to Wayne Manor to keep it out of the city.

__________________Supermanwith Batman - Whatever It Is... - Countdown until midnight release on March 25, 2016 - updated!
A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coataround a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hadn't ended.

Depressed that he ruined his father's company and going into isolation isn't "incredibly stupid" at all.

Look at howard hughes he became a crazy recluse for much less.

I also think some peoeple take the "timelines" as presented too literally. I've watched TDK countless times and there is no firm amount of time given from the time it starts and when begins ended. The same goes for TDKR where it isn't stated in stone anywhere that he spent literally all 8 years locked up in his house.

Nearly every complaint about TDKR and the direction in which Nolan took Bruce's story stems from "Bruce would never do that".

For example, the never retiring thing works well in the comics. Nolan took all the great elements of Batman and grounded the story in a more personal tale of "What would happen if this guy actually became Batman? How long could he do it? What kind of consequences would there be?"

The resolution of TDKR was much more interesting and satisfying than just condemning Bruce to an endless life of fighting thugs every night.

__________________Supermanwith Batman - Whatever It Is... - Countdown until midnight release on March 25, 2016 - updated!
A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coataround a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hadn't ended.

Exactly. Comics' Bruce never saw an end and that's why he continues to fight.

Nolan's Bruce saw an end when his main opposition, organized crime, was taken out of the equation. Even when we saw a few out of the ordinary villains(Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, Joker, Two-Face even if you want to count him), there was never going to be a rising tide of freaks but only a substantial few in Nolan's story. Bruce quit as Batman because this war he was in had a victor and he returned against just to defeat the League of Shadows for good.

The only little flaw in logic in this idea is that it begs the question on what happens with other crimes, but it can be easily said that organized crime is the reason why there is unorganized crime as people like Joe Chill are created because of the mobs as mentioned by Rachel in BB.

For all Bruce knew the LoS was dismantled after Ra's died. And in the time between BB and TDK he and Gordon focus on the mob bosses. After TDK Dent's legacy allows Gotham PD to take care of the mob as well as lower-level criminals. So, in the couple years after TDK both the internal and external threats are taken care of.

Therefore, there was no need for Batman in the time between TDK and TDKR. The way I always imagined it was in the couple of years after TDK, Bruce still followed criminal activity and maybe hacked into GPD servers. He saw that crime was going down and Batman taking the fall for Dent was more or less serving the purpose Bruce meant it to serve. Naturally Bruce was able to focus more on the fusion reactor as he was less worried about crime...until Pavel's paper and so on.

Anyway, the point is that Nolan's Bat Universe doesn't have this endless rogue's gallery that the world can constantly throw at Bruce to perpetually force him into being Batman. At the end of TDK Bruce decides that his job as Batman has pretty much served its purpose. Hell, he decided the same thing in the middle of TDK, but nobody had a problem with that.

Comic Bruce doesn't retire because DC has to keep telling stories and making money. That's really all it is. People can keep pointing to the comics and saying, "Bruce would never quit," but that's only because the show must go on.

The groundwork is laid in BB for Batman being a temporary pursuit. TDK further explores Bruce's contemplation of moving past the cowl. TDKR deals with the aftermath - the emptiness Bruce feels as a result of all the things that have transpired.

BB = Fear
TDK = Chaos
TDKR = Pain

God I love this trilogy. It saddens me that hardcore Batfans didn't like how it ended. I'm not trying to be rude, but for reasons explained above I just think a lot of people couldn't set aside the more improbable fantasies of the comics and appreciate the story Nolan told. A good friend of mine even admitted so. He said he just couldn't be rational about things he didn't like in TDKR because of his emotional attachment to certain aspects of the comics. I love Batman just as much as anyone. I haven't read anywhere near the amount of source material others have, but I'm a lifelong B:TAS and Beyond fan.

That said, I was always able to view Nolan's trilogy as a certain interpretation of Batman. A little more grounded and cerebral. Quite frankly Nolan took the best aspects of Batman and put them into the best live action depiction the character will ever see for a long time. In a strange way it reminds me of Jackson's LOTR and how he took the most interesting aspects of those books and made those movies. Both directors got to the heart of what matters most in each set of stories. For Batman it was always Bruce's personal journey in dealing with his anger and grief. I don't mean that to be condescending or disapproving, but I can't fathom why people who are so invested into this character couldn't appreciate what it meant for Bruce to finally, literally climb out of a pit of hellish despair and choose a life beyond Batman. I can understand if people value the idea but didn't like aspects of the execution. Then again I feel all the reasoning and development are established in the films. But if there's one thing I would say, it is:

The real giving up would have been remaining as Batman.

__________________Supermanwith Batman - Whatever It Is... - Countdown until midnight release on March 25, 2016 - updated!
A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coataround a young boy's shoulders to let him know the world hadn't ended.

You could really say that the Dent Act even helped out with other crimes such a rapes or what have you as well besides just organized crime and that's why eight years after Dent's death, the GCPD could be just going after overdue library books one day if the Dent Act survived TDKR's events.

And if someone ever wanted to bring up Joker's line of Batman and Joker doing this forever, well, you can still say Batman and Joker could still be doing this forever as there will be another Batman

That said, I was always able to view Nolan's trilogy as a certain interpretation of Batman. A little more grounded and cerebral. Quite frankly Nolan took the best aspects of Batman and put them into the best live action depiction the character will ever see for a long time. In a strange way it reminds me of Jackson's LOTR and how he took the most interesting aspects of those books and made those movies. Both directors got to the heart of what matters most in each set of stories. For Batman it was always Bruce's personal journey in dealing with his anger and grief. I don't mean that to be condescending or disapproving, but I can't fathom why people who are so invested into this character couldn't appreciate what it meant for Bruce to finally, literally climb out of a pit of hellish despair and choose a life beyond Batman. I can understand if people value the idea but didn't like aspects of the execution. Then again I feel all the reasoning and development are established in the films.

I don't understand why people are all worked up over Bruce. We should be worked up over the dumb sequence of events that happens with Ghul's daughter all of a sudden taking control even though Bane put Gotham to it's knees. And then Bane getting blown up by Catwoman.

Anyway, the point is that Nolan's Bat Universe doesn't have this endless rogue's gallery that the world can constantly throw at Bruce to perpetually force him into being Batman. At the end of TDK Bruce decides that his job as Batman has pretty much served its purpose.

Quote me the lines that said Bruce was finished as Batman at the end of TDK. Because until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years after TDK, nobody was thinking Batman had thrown in the towel at the end of TDK. TDK's ending gave the impression that Batman can endure being hunted and hated by Gotham because he can be what ever they need him to be. Just like what Alfred said to him when he was going to quit over Joker killing people in his name. He said "People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?", to which Alfred responds "Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it. But that's the point of Batman. He can be the outcast".

How can Batman be enduring anything if he's not Batman any more? No endurance required if you've quit.

Quote:

Hell, he decided the same thing in the middle of TDK, but nobody had a problem with that.

No, he didn't. He decided that he couldn't take any more blood on his hands because of the Joker's murder spree over him. He didn't end up quitting either. He pressed on and continued the good fight, even after Joker played them all for fools and escaped, killed Rachel, and mutilated Dent.

That's why nobody complains about it. The complaints against TDKR are the ones that were fabricated in TDKR.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Quote me the lines that said Bruce was finished as Batman at the end of TDK. Because until Nolan confirmed TDKR was set 8 years after TDK, nobody was thinking Batman had thrown in the towel at the end of TDK. TDK's ending gave the impression that Batman can endure being hunted and hated by Gotham because he can be what ever they need him to be. Just like what Alfred said to him when he was going to quit over Joker killing people in his name. He said "People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?", to which Alfred responds "Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it. But that's the point of Batman. He can be the outcast".

How can Batman be enduring anything if he's not Batman any more? No endurance required if you've quit.

To me, this is all easily explained by the fact that Batman is more than just a man, but a symbol. Symbols can do things people can't. They can hold meaning even in the absence of the people who created them- a key point in the whole trilogy. That's what I take from it when Batman says, "I can do those things...unlike Dent."

It's the moment he realizes that his symbol has walked that fine line between light and darkness and he can nudge it all the way to the dark side for a greater purpose. That he's "not a hero".

The way I read the movie, that has always been why he can "take it". Because as Batman he's more than just a man. He can be whatever Gotham truly needs. And that includes decisions not to act. Like not turning himself in even when things are looking bad. Again, not being the hero.

I'm not saying TDK's ending implies he's going to retire, but I do think there was a touch of ambiguity there. Between the 2008 and 2012 I had a longstanding debate going with my friend, who was 100% convinced Bruce was going to be retired and in isolation at the start of the next film. I'm the bigger fan between us, so I was pretty adamant that Bruce was still going to be knee deep in doing Batman stuff at the start of the next film. Eventually I had to concede that the ending had a touch ambiguity to it that allowed for different readings.

So yeah, I ultimately ended up losing that argument lol. But it's okay because I won the one we had about whether or not Dent would show up in the movie .

To me, this is all easily explained by the fact that Batman is more than just a man, but a symbol. Symbols can do things people can't. They can hold meaning even in the absence of the people who created them- a key point in the whole trilogy. That's what I take from it when Batman says, "I can do those things...unlike Dent."

"I can do those things because I'm not a hero. Not like Dent". That's the full quote. He's saying he's a man in a mask who fights outside the law. Dent was a hero with a face who fought the criminals through the law. That's what that line means. That's why he's not a hero like Dent is. That was the whole point of him wanting Dent to be Gotham's hero throughout TDK, because he's a better candidate to inspire Gotham than a masked vigilante can.

Quote:

The way I read the movie, that has always been why he can "take it". Because as Batman he's more than just a man. He can be whatever Gotham truly needs. And that includes decisions not to act. Like not turning himself in even when things are looking bad. Again, not being the hero.

Then I think you read the movie wrong. He didn't turn himself in because as Alfred said Batman stands for something more important than the whims of a terrorist. He didn't turn himself in because Gotham still needed him. Nothing to do with symbols. It was that he can endure being hated and press on with the job.

Just like what Alfred said to him in the bunker when Bruce was prepping himself to turn himself in. "Endure, Master Wayne. Take it". Endure doesn't mean quitting.

Quote:

I'm not saying TDK's ending implies he's going to retire, but I do think there was a touch of ambiguity there.

I don't. Look at TDK's ending. Batman says he's going to take the rap for Dent's crimes because he can be whatever Gotham needs. Gordon says they're going to hunt him and chase him because he can take it. He's now a Dark Knight.

Nobody was walking out of TDK outraged that Nolan retired Batman at the end of TDK because TDK did not give us that ending. On the contrary, it looked like Batman had evolved into a Dark Knight who was going to be on the job with the law snapping at his heels because he can endure that.

The point of taking the blame for Dent was to keep hope alive in Gotham, and not undo all of his good work. Nobody thought the city was going to become a crime free utopia that would make even Gordon surplus to requirements, let alone Batman. These things were not hinted at in TDK. That's why the bulk of the complaints against TDKR are the ones that stemmed from TDKR.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

To me, this is all easily explained by the fact that Batman is more than just a man, but a symbol. Symbols can do things people can't. They can hold meaning even in the absence of the people who created them- a key point in the whole trilogy. That's what I take from it when Batman says, "I can do those things...unlike Dent."

The symbol was broken at the end of 'knight', figuratively and literally. TDKR was the gradual rebuilding of his symbolic status staring with rebirth, absence, Return and Blake, right?